::Hey, I looked at the Texas link, I didnt like the Google Map ..it made the article look messy and congested but I DID like the logical geographical sub-headings.. that certainly cleans up the list a treat. Pistevo, I can help you sort 'Victoria' into geographical zones since I am a Melbourne girl but I couldnt really assist you with other areas of Australia. -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 17:42, February 19, 2008 (PST)

::Hey, I looked at the Texas link, I didnt like the Google Map ..it made the article look messy and congested but I DID like the logical geographical sub-headings.. that certainly cleans up the list a treat. Pistevo, I can help you sort 'Victoria' into geographical zones since I am a Melbourne girl but I couldnt really assist you with other areas of Australia. -- [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 17:42, February 19, 2008 (PST)

:::If you could do Victoria, that'd be great :D Victoria probably has the same amount of churches as New South Wales, and they're both _massive_ lists...now that the new Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website is up, I'm trying to put in the names of clergy - I think I've done the first, like, 10... &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 18:46, February 19, 2008 (PST)

:::If you could do Victoria, that'd be great :D Victoria probably has the same amount of churches as New South Wales, and they're both _massive_ lists...now that the new Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website is up, I'm trying to put in the names of clergy - I think I've done the first, like, 10... &mdash; by [[User:Pistevo|<font color="green">Pιs</font><font color="gold">τévο</font>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Pistevo|<font color="blue">talk</font>]]'' ''[[User talk:Pistevo/dev/null|<font color="red">complaints</font>]]''</sup> at 18:46, February 19, 2008 (PST)

+

::::The thing about the map is that I had to look up each address to get the coordinates. Then I put in the line (adjusted to always include the jurisdictional link) from the article's list as the caption for the coordinates. It's easier with the "List of parishes" series in the States because almost everything has a specific link, and the lines are already ready. The listings (and links) should be in before the map is attempted, IMHO. Just a note from [[User:Wsk|Wsk]] from Category talk:Parish Directory (USA)|Feb 1, 2006: "I would leave the [clergy] names off, again to reduce what could be a major effort to keep up with changing personalities and making the 'correction.' " We haven't implemented that in all the articles, but it is a pain going through and trying to update them&mdash;just something to keep in mind here. Basically, I think it would be a good idea to go to [[Category talk:Parish Directory (Australia and Oceania)]] and decide on an overall style. (Maybe even make an article for the Style Manual.) —[[User:Magda|<b>magda</b>]] ([[User_talk:Magda|talk]]) 19:06, February 19, 2008 (PST)

Revision as of 22:45, October 11, 2009

List based on location

This article has been reverted - part of the basis of these list articles is that they are sorted geographically. People wanting specific jurisdictions can easily look at the various jurisdicitonal websites. — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 04:08, February 19, 2008 (PST)

No disrespect intended but I disagree with the fact that you have reverted it back. It is not user friendly to have one big 'dump' of churches. Yesterday, I was trying to find the Bentleigh Church of Raphael, Nicholas and Irene and couldnt find it on your list ... I was getting dizzy looking at the screen ... PS. You have this church listed in the wrong spot ...I live next door to that church and I can guarantee you, it is not in the country ...its within Melbourne. PSS. You have also removed a few links that I added. -- Vasiliki 13:45, February 19, 2008 (PST)

I'm going to agree with both of you: one big lump of a list isn't helpful, but a geographic separation would be helpful. What's the best way to geographically group the parishes of Victoria? In the States, it's easy enough to go by city, or city-and-smaller-nearby-town, but Victoria seems to have a different layout altogether, with most being in Melbourne itself. In NSW there's a division by city, and then by postal code where necessary. —magda (talk) 15:18, February 19, 2008 (PST)

Pistevo did the same thing when he reverted the list of parishes in NSW. When he reverted to the old classification system, he also reverted all the new links, updates, and spelling corrections, which I had added. They have never been restored. Plus in Sydney, the postcode system is not strictly geographical. Especially when he put Rooty Hill out in the country. Postcodes might be strictly geographical in Brisbane, but they are not in Sydney. chrisg 20 Feb 2008 07:56 (AWST)

Magda ... listing parishes geographically is a little difficult but we have do have geographical zones for Melbourne. I can review tonight and update tomorrow if it helps Pistevo since I live in Melbourne and am familiar with all of the churches and their locations. PS, we also have the same issue in Melbourne as per Sydeny our Postcodes do not reflect geographical locations accurately. I would still think that listing within the context of each specific church makes more sence ... Australia is unique in that not all Parishes belong to the same jurisdiction ... Just my thoughts. Also, on a more general note, when you guys revert, is there a way of informing us before you do it so we can not lose links and stuff that we spend time updating. -- Vasiliki 16:28, February 19, 2008 (PST)

Alas, if only it were true that Australia were "unique in that not all Parishes belong to the same jurisdiction"! This problem actually exists in most of the world—all of North America, South America, Western Europe, Oceania, and most of Asia. —Fr. Andrewtalkcontribs(THINK!) 16:55, February 19, 2008 (PST)

OK, true ...but this is not helping to move forward on the dilemma! :-) I still like a top-down approach only cause I am an engineer and we have top-down logic thinking ...for my thinking, I think it makes sence to file information > Church Group (ie Antioch, Greek etc) > Geographical > Alphanumerical. The current method on this page is a long list ...I like the innitiative as it is but I changed it yesterday to make it look simpler. Hence today's discussion. -- Vasiliki 17:02, February 19, 2008 (PST)

The information is still there, available by clicking on the "history" tab (to the left of the "edit" tab); you can use it to view single "snapshots" of the page for a particular edit or to see the differences in edits. Unless there's a glitch in the system, we don't have to worry about losing links. I've been working on a map for the Texas article. Would that be of any use here? (We'd still have to come up with something for the list, though.) —magda (talk) 17:22, February 19, 2008 (PST)

I did actually check the page history to try and salvage the links to 'patronals' (for lack of a better word), but there was no way to do that.

The problem with sorting by church group is that it actually removes the justification for the articles on OW - these are (with the possible exception of the Serbian Diocese) available on the jurisdictions webpage. The point and sole justification is that these are MCB-parishes, geographically sorted, with no regard for which jurisdiction is which (so long as it's MCB, of course).

A map could work if it was basically a map of Melbourne - Victoria is a small state with, moreso than the rest of Australia, a high ratio of capital city living.

I do agree that it's too much under one header. East Melbourne, North Melbourne, etc., would all be good differentiations - where there's more than two churches in a city (e.g. Geelong), that's always gotten it's own header. I would do that in the area that I live, but...there's not enough churches to justify that :) — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 17:24, February 19, 2008 (PST)

Hey, I looked at the Texas link, I didnt like the Google Map ..it made the article look messy and congested but I DID like the logical geographical sub-headings.. that certainly cleans up the list a treat. Pistevo, I can help you sort 'Victoria' into geographical zones since I am a Melbourne girl but I couldnt really assist you with other areas of Australia. -- Vasiliki 17:42, February 19, 2008 (PST)

If you could do Victoria, that'd be great :D Victoria probably has the same amount of churches as New South Wales, and they're both _massive_ lists...now that the new Greek Orthodox Archdiocese website is up, I'm trying to put in the names of clergy - I think I've done the first, like, 10... — by Pιsτévοtalkcomplaints at 18:46, February 19, 2008 (PST)

The thing about the map is that I had to look up each address to get the coordinates. Then I put in the line (adjusted to always include the jurisdictional link) from the article's list as the caption for the coordinates. It's easier with the "List of parishes" series in the States because almost everything has a specific link, and the lines are already ready. The listings (and links) should be in before the map is attempted, IMHO. Just a note from Wsk from Category talk:Parish Directory (USA)|Feb 1, 2006: "I would leave the [clergy] names off, again to reduce what could be a major effort to keep up with changing personalities and making the 'correction.' " We haven't implemented that in all the articles, but it is a pain going through and trying to update them—just something to keep in mind here. Basically, I think it would be a good idea to go to Category talk:Parish Directory (Australia and Oceania) and decide on an overall style. (Maybe even make an article for the Style Manual.) —magda (talk) 19:06, February 19, 2008 (PST)